The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post

posted at 10:20 am on December 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The Chicago Tribune briefly revives the Obama-birth-certificate kerfuffle in an update today, if only to throw more cold water on it. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court confabs over whether to grant a review to Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after having it rejected in district and appellate courts:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election.

The meeting of justices will coincide with a vigil by the filer’s supporters in Washington on the steps of the nation’s highest court.

The suit originally sought to stay the election, and was filed on behalf of Leo Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells. …

The Obama campaign has maintained that he was born in Hawaii, has an authentic birth certificate, and is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen. Hawaiian officials agree.

The latest buzz surrounds the decision by Clarence Thomas to circulate the appeal petition to the entire court after David Souter rejected it immediately. That really doesn’t mean much, as the Tribune explains. Of the 842 petitions circulated in that manner, only 60 got a spot on the court calendar, and not all of those succeeded. Thomas may have been interested in the technical aspects of the suit rather than the merits, or perhaps it was a slow week.

It does, however, make it news, no matter how much some of us wish it would go away. The state of Hawaii has repeatedly insisted that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii, as the Certificate of Live Birth states. The COLB would get any Hawaii native an American passport with no questions asked, even without the official endorsement of the Republican governor and her Department of Health. There is even a contemporaneous birth announcement in a local paper confirming it.

I’m sure the comments section will fill with various conspiracy theories over Indonesian school records, Kenyan births, and so on. None of it — absolutely none — has any real, solid evidence showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii apart from sheer speculation and hearsay, and even less evidence that Obama’s stepfather renounced Obama’s birthright citizenship, which he didn’t have the power to do anyway. It’s a conspiracy theory spun by conspiracy theorists (Philip Berg is a 9/11 truther) who use their normal thresholds of evidence for this meme.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can’t kill the conspiracy theories. It can only kill the lawsuits, which is what they will almost certainly do tomorrow when they meet.

The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

If so, this is an even dumber argument than first thought. The children of immigrants born in this country are ineligible to be President? Since when does “natural born” refer to the parents of citizens? Natural born means the person at question was born in US territory, and it always has. Immigration-enforcement activists have been trying to change that definition to eliminate the “anchor babies” issue.

Also, adoption only changes the parentage on the birth certificate, not the place, date, or time of birth. I’ve done an adoption myself and can personally attest to that fact. If Obama had been adopted by Mr. Soetero, Hawaii would only have changed the father’s name on the record — and since Barack Obama Sr has been listed on the birth certificate, it appears that Mr. Soetero didn’t adopt Obama anyway.

Update III: As a rebuttal to Update 1, this from the comments:

The paper lied on purpose. The HI Dept of health went of its way to say everything but that. They do have his original birth certificate, but from where?

The State of Hawaii only keeps birth certificates from births in Hawaii. The State of California only keeps birth certificates from births in California, Minnesota only keeps those from births in Minnesota, and so on. They don’t store information on births outside of their state. Why would they bother to do that? Use some common sense.

Update IV: The Honolulu Advertiser reported on the Dept. of Health statement on November 1 in a little more detail:

State Health Department employees continue to be barraged by requests from people demanding to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate, including some who have called the department’s registrar of vital statistics at home — in the middle of the night.

“This has gotten ridiculous,” state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. “There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy.”

So, in what likely will be a vain attempt to halt the inquiries, Fukino yesterday issued a statement saying that she and the registrar of vital statistics personally inspected Obama’s birth certificate and found it to be valid.

Will this be enough to quiet the doubters?

“I hope so,” Fukino said. “We need to get some work done.”

Fukino issued her statement to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu — and is therefore not a U.S. citizen and thus ineligible to run for president.

Fukino, however, repeated the Health Department’s position that state law prohibits her or any other officials from actually releasing the birth certificate, which Obama’s campaign says shows he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” Fukino said in the statement. “State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes ¤338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. … No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

President is the ONLY job the Framers put the Natural Born requirment on.

Romeo13 on December 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM

In addition to what Romeo13 said, keep in mind that, at the time of the framing, the president had a LOT less power than he does today. Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency greatly expanded the reach of POTUS. From then on, the office has taken on more and more power.

That being said, keep in mind that the Framers wanted someone with no possibility of dividied loyalty. We have already seen that Obama was participating in Kenyan Election (Odingo).

We’ll see what happens later today.

It would be sweet irony if the same guy who used the judicial process to disqualify his opponents ends up hoist by his own petard.

Except for the words of one of the many framers, there’s really no good evidence that “natural born” means “someone who doesn’t hold dual citizenships”.

jim m on December 5, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Actualy, back then, you could not be a dual citizen, it was flat out illegal.

And in fact, the war of 1812 was fought partly because the Brits said that American Citizens, were Dual American/Brit citizens, because they had once been brit Cits, or were the offspring of a Brit Father… and thus were liable to impression into their Navy.

And round and round we go.
to me there are 2 options here.
Either
A: obama is NOT able to hold ofc.
B: Obama is able to hold ofc , and is letting this go as long as possible, to keep the focus on this to discredit those that want to follow the Constitution.

what really bugs me is people dont want to follow the constitution ALL THE FRIGGEN TIME.
Yet they want to wrap up the bad guys in the constitution to protect them, even people that are NOT US citizens.
the last words in the pre able set the frame work for the Constitution.
“For us and our posterity”.

On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

This election cycle has shown me a couple of things I didn’t know about myself. Thank goodness for the MSN and BHO for pointing this out to me. First I found out I’m a racist(really had no clue). Now I find out that, even though I don’t believe our government took down the WTC or flew a plane into the pentagon, I am some kind of conspiracy nut. All my life I had this silly idea that the POTUS would be required to pony up proof of citizenship. Well, golly gee whiz, I better trot myself off to the nearest shrink I can find because I have a condition.
Oh wait… I would have to pay for that out of my own pocket. I bet the government reeducation camps will be free of charge so I’ll get on the waiting list for the Grand Opening.

There’s only one way to kill a conspiracy theory like this – you ignore it. Which is precisely what the President-Elect is doing. Bluntly, considering the strength of the arguments presented to date, it’s not even worth his time.

Mal Carne on December 5, 2008 at 7:46 AM

That is what Bush did with the ‘Bush AWOL’ and ‘Bush Lied’ canards and what happened….every week that went by the lies became more accepted and the noise from those espousing them louder. Eventually the nuttiness made it to the front pages of (surprise) the liberal press, was killed and arose again, and yet a third time like Lazarus from the grave. ‘Bush AWOL’ only died then the old media was caught manufacturing evidence to support the lie.

If a politician “ignores” such comments they only get stronger. This particular issue is astoundingly easy to refute. It only requires one document.

Why has it not been produced?

Not producing it serves no rational purpose except to further this rumor.

OK here’s a basic question.
Why is Obama being held to a higher standard than any other person born in Hawaii? If ALL long form certificates in the state are sealed, then his use of the short form should be accessible. By demanding a state to change its law for the conspiracy theorists doesn’t that encroach on the state’s right to make decisions about how it handles birth certificates.

DeathToMediaHacks on December 5, 2008 at 7:54 AM

Not all long-form certificates in Hawaii are sealed. If they were, you wouldn’t see examples of them floating around on the Internet.

Furthermore, Hawaii itself won’t accept its own short-form COLB as sufficient evidence in their Home Stead program… they require applicants to produce a copt of their long-form certificate. They do this precisely because the short-form information could have been amended along the way.

The original long-form copy remains unamended, however. That’s why Hawaii demands that applicants use it, and it’s not difficult for applicants to get a copy, either.

Nor, by Hawaii state law, is it difficult for anyone else with a tangible interest in the vital record to get a copy. You simply need to show how/why you have a tangible interest, and pay the fee.

There’s no need to demand or expect a change in state law to satisfy this need… the existing laws are sufficient to allow for the release of the vital record in question.

In that sense, Obama is being treated no differently than anyone else who has birth records stored and maintained in Hawaii… and some of those records are for people who were born outside the state of Hawaii, as has been pointed out.

It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn’t hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings — Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) — permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.

In addition to what Romeo13 said, keep in mind that, at the time of the framing, the president had a LOT less power than he does today. Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency greatly expanded the reach of POTUS. From then on, the office has taken on more and more power.

bullseye on December 5, 2008 at 10:47 AM

I don’t think so. Abraham Lincoln sure wielded a heavy club, and he predates Teddy. The office of the President is constrained to the powers enumerated in our Constitution, and powers which appear to extend beyond that can be created and destroyed by Congress, with all subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

It’s the latter that led to Lincoln’s battles with Chief Justice Taney (which Lincoln won because Justice Taney tried to launch his initial attacks on Lincoln’s war preparations unilaterally from his parallel office as a judge of the Circuit Court).

Exactly! the double standard here is sickening. In my opinion, th emedia is the biggest culprit here. Fourth Estate my ass! They become a cartoon, a bunch of cheerleaders for Democrats, attack dogs against Republicans. Journalist is right below Community Organizer in my view.

–There’s no law out there that interprets the “natural born’ clause of the Constitution
jim m on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

No, but until the SC addresses the issue it will keep coming back to haunt us. Personally, I can’t think of a more important case, or a more perfect opportunity to deal with the issue than this one.

There are a lot of people who are no fans of the ‘natural born’ clause, and would love to see it undone. Which may be what O wishes to precipitate. I would prefer the court address it at a time of their choosing, rather than when it may thrust upon them at some future date.

This was written 20 years ago, but offers many great cites along with an approach to resolve the question at hand.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence,” the document said. “The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.”

1) The Constitution has the provision of ‘natural born citizen’ in it. Fine, but what is the PROCESS that validates that someone is eligible? Name me the department and person whose function it is to discharge the validation of the candidate? So far I have not been able to find that person. The only reason the SCOTUS is involved is a series of lawsuits, but I find it hard to believe the Founders would have suggested that SCOTUS is the arbiter of such inquiry without a lawsuit.

So in 250 years there is no stop gap measure to prevent a usurper to potentially become President? Hard to believe.

2) The comments in (1) I would suggest should also apply to the supporting party. How foolish would a party be to blow millions of dollars. Get half way through a campaign only to find out that their standard bearer is ineligible to the position. It would seem to be incumbent on the party to validate/certify that their candidate is eligible for the position.

Goes to show how low we have sunk. When the country started the Founders probably never considered that someone would stoop so low as to usurp a position they were not qualifed for. Now I could envision it happening. Such is our society today and no safeguards to prevent it, it appears.

Get half way through a campaign only to find out that their standard bearer is ineligible to the position. It would seem to be incumbent on the party to validate/certify that their candidate is eligible for the position.

Dr. Dog on December 5, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Hea, maybe he is “natural born”, but that begs for the question…
Where was Malcolm X in early Dec of 1960? (tongue in cheek)

Imagine or even pretend it was a conservative Republican trying to pull this. Presenting just a few pieces of paper as his records.

I wonder if Hollywood, the Drive-by media, academics and the ’sunshine and transparency’ fans in the liberal blogs would have the same quiet and comfortable attitude?

Investigative journalists live for this — if it happens on the right.

IlikedAUH2O on December 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM

The loony left beleived the damn dan blather false docs on bush, why would they NOT beleive this doc?
But I read that mccain had released his BC because of a law suit like this one.
AS HE SHOULD HAVE. If he has won and didnt release the BC , I would be screaming the same thing!
its the LAW, PASS OR PLAY.

I agree with ColdWarrior57 and IlikedAUH2O — it just goes to show you that as a rule, the conservatives lose the cultural and political war because their spokespersons (politicians or media writers) are for the most part wimps. You can be sure as the sun rises daily that had the roles been reversed, this would be a major story now.

I know this is off topic but… where are BHO’s white relatives. We know his white mother and grandparents are dead. Was that it? All his white relatives are dead?
Well, there are some Christmases I wish my family was that small.
Where have these people been? (assuming there are any left)
Seriously, I am on the hunt for BHO’s white relatives. Does anyone out there have a lead?

Update: From October 31:The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”

Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.

The first statement that Obama was born in Hawaii IS NOT bourne out by the statements made in quotation marks. It is INFERRED. What the official actually SAID was, she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

To say YES, I saw it and have verified it exists and is on record.. is NOT the same as saying Obama was born in Hawaii. That is PRESUMED in this passage. If Hillary Clinton told you.. “I saw it, just trust me” would you believe her? Why should we take some biased person’s opinion as though it is the truth? Cannot the courts determine the truth of the matter? Is it wrong to want to know the complete TRUTH?

The way the statement quoted above reads, she has covered herself if ever it is disclosed by law to the Supreme Court. She can say, “I never said he was natural born or even born in the United States. I only said that I had SEEN the certificate and it was a valid certificate, Your Honor.”

The words spoken here do NOT back up the contention in the first paragraph of: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.

The words spoken here do NOT back up the contention in the first paragraph of: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.

She DID NOT SAY THIS.. read carefully!

Gil on December 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Gil – You are exactly right on the weasel wording. Keep in mind that Obama is a liberal Leftist Lawyer LLL just like Billy Jeff Clinton. Remember Clinton Wagging his finger in our faces and saying “I did not have sexual relations with That Woman .. Miss Lewinsky”.. Meanwhile he had been wagging something else in monica’s face all along.

He defended himself with a tortured exercise that BJs and Cigar insertions were not ‘sexual relations’..

SO, when dealing with LLLs be VERY careful. They will use semantics just like this to lie like a cheap rug. Saying that it is a valid document does NOT prove eligibility. As Gil said, the press release is just enough to be able to say “Oh but I told you the truth.. Sorry if you were so stupid that you misinterpreted it”

This is also being discussed in the (Birther & Truther) other thread around here on the subject.
There, Carne has presented the same nonsense about an official admitting The One was born in Honolulu except he has the media misquoting Hawaiian State officials to make his case. The majority of the media did not say that any official cleared the matter up. But progressives, like the kooks they are, just grab any straw they can reach.

Interestingly, his reporter apparently never researched the confidentiality of birth records in Hawaii before quoting the official. Carne supplies a link to the odious article from The Chicage Tribune and I encourage any brothers or sisters here with strong stomachs to check it out.

The latest media read on this is interesting. The latest (KO last night on MSNBC and All the News You Need on the Web) is that SCOTUS will swerve away from this problem after the grief earned the last time the Court intervened in an election. The obvious result is overturning the election. And why would that happen if The One is beyond reproach?

A DC lawyer with some connections told me that he was surprised that the cases got this far. He also said that the liberals seem pressured and worried. I did not get a reading on how close these guys were to “official Washington”.

I would like to lie but I will not.

However, I am getting a sense that someone thinks he is guilty — based on the buzz and moves around DC.